Obama Opens Up a 9-Point Lead

[Aeson]

Because his policy positions have trended towards more mainstream Republican positions over that timeframe. Actual stances on policy, not what letter you consider putting by your name, determines that as far as I'm concerned.

As for the extent that he considered the option of being the D VP nomination, and what policy changes in his own platform that he would have accepted to do so, that is not a subject which I am well versed on. As he didn't actually run as such, it is likely that either he was not deemed acceptable (if he offered), or he did not find whatever conditions (if there was an offer) acceptable. Meaning that there was an incompatibility there. What it was, and to what extent, is unknown. But it's likely that the incompatibility was that his policy positions at the time were more along the lines of a R than a D.

If he had run as a D, I really wouldn't call him a maverick anyways. Not anymore so than I'd call Lieberman a maverick for switching parties. (Though it's possible he could have bucked the D's while running as a D too. But we'll never know.)

I am sorry if you cannot see the logic behind using "may have been" or other such expressions when dealing with subject matter which is uncertain. I do not know if I would call him a maverick at that point. That is all it means.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Because his policy positions have trended towards more mainstream Republican positions over that timeframe.

How exactly? My search of news articles from 2004 revealed plenty of examples of McCain opposing the Republicans and Bush, including this gem...

Yesterday, Hastert questioned whether McCain is really a member of Bush's party. "A Republican?" Hastert said with feigned incredulity. He then criticized McCain's opposition to extending tax cuts in wartime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41083-2004May19.html

[Aeson]

I see you've ignored the majority of my explanation about why I used "may have been" instead of making a more adamant statement about his position at that time.

It is undeniable that McCain has moved further to the mainstream Republican side of things since 2000. I do not know the precise dates (nor am I willing to waste the time to look them up) when he has made specific policy changes to his platform. I do not know if they occurred before, during, or after that year. That is why I used "may have been" for 2004.

If you are still having trouble understanding that concept, feel free to ask for further explanation. I will quote what I have said for you so you can read it again.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It is undeniable that McCain has moved further to the mainstream Republican side of things since 2000.

It's not undeniable. I am, in fact, denying it and you don't seem to have any evidence to back up your case. So much for logic...

[Aeson]

You are denying that McCain is not more mainstream R now than he was in 2000?

[Naked Gents Rut]

1. The time period we've just been discussing is from 2000 to 2004. I think McCain clearly strayed farther and farther from the Republican party in those years, culminating with his flirtation with the Democratic VP slot in 2004. You've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

2. I don't think it's clear that McCain has shifted toward the mainstream of the Republican Party in the last eight years. In fact, I think the opposite has happened and that the mainstream Republican view has shifted toward McCain. The Bush administration has clearly governed in different fashion during its second term and this change has brought it more in line with McCain's already established views.

3. That being said, McCain still has significant differences with large swathes of his own party. McCain-Kennedy and the Gang of 14 are evidence of this.

[Naked Gents Rut]

An interesting site...

http://voteview.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/who-is-more-liberal-senator-obama-or-senator-clinton/

Senators Obama and Clinton are clearly representative of their fellow Senate Democrats. They are to the left of the mean on the first dimension but by no means are they outliers. In constrast, Senator McCain is a clear outlier in the Republican Party. His position down low on the second dimension indicates that he defects on a number of roll calls and votes with the Democrats.

[Ramo]

He then criticized McCain's opposition to extending tax cuts in wartime.

I'm not sure why you bring this up, since he flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, and supports even more regressive tax cuts. Quite the Maverick

He had a fairly moderate set of positions from 1999-2003, and was an orthodox Republican (with a few exceptions) before and afterwards. On the major issues - tax cuts, health care, and climate change legislation, his positions and recent record are barely distinguishable from Bush's.

As for rating systems, it's hard to give them too much credence due to the number of skipped votes during the last Congress (particularly for McCain). One has to look at their records in more detail than that. It's true that McCain is somewhat to the left of the Republicans in general. But that's still far to the right of any Democrat. McCain is definitely no Gordon Smith or an Olympia Snowe, much less a Lincoln Chafee.

[Naked Gents Rut]

on ... climate change legislation, his positions and recent record are barely distinguishable from Bush's.

[Ramo]

Guess his position on Warner-Lieberman (nee McCain-Lieberman). Like Bush, McCain's support for doing anything about carbon emissions is basically rhetorical. Mavericky, if you will.

[Naked Gents Rut]

When did Bush start supporting a cap and trade system?

Senator John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change. ...

In what his campaign promoted as a major speech on climate change, the Arizona senator renewed his support for a “cap-and-trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on greenhouse gases by either reducing emissions on their own or buying credits from more efficient producers. ...

Mr. McCain added pointedly: “I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.”

The senator’s remarks were a direct criticism of Mr. Bush, who in his first term questioned the scientific basis for global warming and has remained adamantly opposed to mandatory caps on emissions as bad for the American economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/12cnd-mccain.html

Am I really the only person on Poly who can do very simple research? The constant talking out one's ass on this board is infuriating...

edit: Damn your DanS...

[Ramo]

I caught myself, and DanSed you. You're right, Bush never endorsed cap and trade AFAIK (though he has endorsed limiting carbon emissions from power plants).

But the point is that McCain support for limiting carbon emissions is totally rhetorical. He opposed Warner-Lieberman (but skipped the vote), which is a conservative version of cap and trade. As I said, almost indistinguishable from Bush.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You still haven't proved that McCain's position on climate change is "barely distinguishable" from Bush's, as you claimed earlier. Even the New York Times can see the difference.

[Ramo]

I did. He opposed Warner-Lieberman. His rhetorical support for a cap and trade system doesn't negate that.

[Naked Gents Rut]

McCain has been pretty clear that he supports a cap and trade system of some kind. He simply differed with Warner-Lieberman over the amount of carbon to be cut.

Mr. McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate this year to call for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but his target for reducing those emissions over time is lower than that of his Democratic competitors, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and even lower than that in a bill proposed by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia.

In his speech, Mr. McCain advocated cutting emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose cutting them by 80 percent over the same period, while the Lieberman-Warner bill calls for a 70 percent reduction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/12cnd-mccain.html

Since Bush doesn't support cap and trade at all, there's clearly a difference between McCain and Bush on this.